What do we do with McLemore?

[King Baller]

Keep starting Ben. The Kings are not making the playoffs anyhow. So you let your 1st round pick play, gain experience and see how he grows.

MT is not the starter of the future.

I'm surprised so many think the Kings should have beat the Spurs??? Sure it was a close game but this is the Spurs we are talking about.

KB

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm surprised that you're not getting why people are unhappy. It's not that we lost to a better team: we had a nine-point lead in the fourth, and lost by eight. Nobody should be cool with that.

 

[King Baller]

I'm surprised that you're not getting why people are unhappy. It's not that we lost to a better team: we had a nine-point lead in the fourth, and lost by eight. Nobody should be cool with that.

I'm sorry, the Spurs are better than the Kings. Yes the Kings were ahead and it looked like they were going to pull it off just like against the Heat.

But then the Spurs started playing like the Spurs. They have been together many years doing this same thing. The Kings are starting to show glimpses of improvement. Its just early in the process. I'm not happy about the loss. I'm just not surprised by it.

I give the Spurs credit for for winning.

KB

 

[VF21]

I'm sorry, the Spurs are better than the Kings. Yes the Kings were ahead and it looked like they were going to pull it off just like against the Heat.

But then the Spurs started playing like the Spurs. They have been together many years doing this same thing. The Kings are starting to show glimpses of improvement. Its just early in the process. I'm not happy about the loss. I'm just not surprised by it.

I give the Spurs credit for for winning.

KB

Slim is saying people aren't upset because the Kings lost to a better team (the Spurs), they're upset because we allowed a 17-point swing in the 4th.

 

[Entity]

Well, for starters, ideally you're not starting all three of those guys. Start Cousins and Gay with two "3 and D" guys, and a post defender. Bring Thomas off the bench and then, presuming that Malone actually goes by his word and doesn't ever sit Cousins and Gay at the same time (like he said he would), then you still have two scorers on the floor at all times, and you don't wear them all out.

All roads go through Boston. Rondo, Bradley, and lee. I don't think we can get Crawford as he is the rondo replacement. In a few weeks Derek Williams becomes an asset. Danny green interest me from San Antonio. They feel the need more offense now so belinelli starts. Ginobili off the bench. Green is losing min lately. He is top 10 defensive sg. Bradley also top 10.

Williams for green works right now. Gives them a true SF to backup Leonard. Also athleticism. That San Antonio lacks. They still have B and G at sg

Don't think we can get rondo without including IT. Bradley could be had for Ben I think. IT would still start in the last scenario


If need be you could throw a hell of backcourt defense with Bradley and green together.

 

[KingMilz]

I still reckon our best option is to offer if we are going to trade Mclemore is Dion Waiters

#The Cavs want a shooter next to Kyrie they tried to get Klay Thompson in 2011 and Mclemore is a similar player to what Klay was back than
#Dion Waiters replaces Jimmer as the back up PG and can be a starting SG (prefer him as a 6th man) as well, getting also means we under no circumstances do we have to overpay for Isaiah Thomas next season since he's a very capable 6th man and combo guard. He can give the bench a MASSIVE boost and help out Thornton and the other guys.
#He's got good potential even more so than Mclemore he can shoot/drive and dribble with the best of them
#He's a smaller cheaper worst finishing/better shooting Tyreke Evans who we all seem to miss right now
#Cavs fans say he can actually defend well and he's got some nasty in him and he's still super young.
#If we get a defensive pass first PG next season than we can start him @SG and he can be the 3rd option after Gay/Cuz and bring IT off the bench.

 

[Bricklayer]

I still reckon our best option is to offer if we are going to trade Mclemore is Dion Waiters

#The Cavs want a shooter next to Kyrie they tried to get Klay Thompson in 2011 and Mclemore is a similar player to what Klay was back than
#Dion Waiters replaces Jimmer as the back up PG and can be a starting SG (prefer him as a 6th man) as well, getting also means we under no circumstances do we have to overpay for Isaiah Thomas next season since he's a very capable 6th man and combo guard. He can give the bench a MASSIVE boost and help out Thornton and the other guys.
#He's got good potential even more so than Mclemore he can shoot/drive and dribble with the best of them
#He's a smaller cheaper worst finishing/better shooting Tyreke Evans who we all seem to miss right now
#Cavs fans say he can actually defend well and he's got some nasty in him and he's still super young.
#If we get a defensive pass first PG next season than we can start him @SG and he can be the 3rd option after Gay/Cuz and bring IT off the bench.

You could only do Waiters if you were in fact planning on breaking up the Cousins/Gay/IT trio. Otherwise he falls into the same trap of having no shots, and he was being insulted for his defense just a few weeks ago too.

 

[KingMilz]

You could only do Waiters if you were in fact planning on breaking up the Cousins/Gay/IT trio. Otherwise he falls into the same trap of having no shots, and he was being insulted for his defense just a few weeks ago too.

He won't be on the floor same time as them (all 3)most of the time and if we move Isaiah to the bench (assuming we get a pass first/defending PG) we start Waiters at SG next season, Waiters becomes what Thomas was this year off the bench.

We wait have all 4 of them on the floor to maybe close out games since Waiters can space the floor and can defend better than any guard we currently got.

 

[Uncia03]

I'm really curious as to what the FO's thoughts are in terms of long-term player status.
At the moment, the only person I know for certain who is going to be around for the next couple of years is Cousins.

So far I'm really liking what I've seen from Gay as a #2 option and I think that if he continues to play well we can probably lock him up for 'reasonable' (11-14/year) deal.
So if Cousins and Gay are your two primary starting scoring options then in a perfect world you get a starting quality defensive pass-first PG, a starting '3 and D' SG, and a starting quality rim protecting big next to Cousins.
This is the draft to get that starting quality rim protecting big, since they will be available even if we don't win the lottery. So in my head I figure that the defensive big man issue is already solved, which then leaves the issue of a starting quality defensive/pass-first PG and a reliable '3 and D' SG.

I would love to have IT coming off the bench in this scenario, but with how he's been playing, I don't think it's going to happen. So you have to wonder if the FO is going to roll the dice with him as the other major piece, or use him to bring in that PG who can better balance the team.

If you do trade IT, then it actually leaves the door open for Landry as a 6th man, but if you don't trade IT, then I think you have to consider moving Landry (good luck) because I don't know if he'll fit in well with this team due to the limitation in shots.

As for Ben...he is athletic, but he doesn't have good defensive instincts right now. I don't know if he can develop them, but if we get a more pass-first PG then I could see the FO hoping that he'll develop into the '3 and D' SG that would fit the starting unit.

But it all really hinges on who the FO thinks is expendable, and really it starts with IT. Will the FO turn IT's massively good start of the year into a piece that better suits Cousins and Gay or will they roll with this current trio and mold the extra pieces around that.

Pretty much any deal in my mind revolves around that question and at the moment I have no idea as to what their thought process is.

 

[sdballer]

He won't be on the floor same time as them (all 3)most of the time and if we move Isaiah to the bench (assuming we get a pass first/defending PG) we start Waiters at SG next season, Waiters becomes what Thomas was this year off the bench.

Still isn't what we need. We don't need a guy who doesn't defend well and has a primary skill set as a scorer.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I am not sure that McLemore is a bust, just not ready to start. As abysmal as Thorton was at the start of the season, he may be ready to start again, at least until a trade can be made. Of course it may also mean living with him at the 2 for the rest of the season (God forbid). Trade scenarios are nice but moving McLemore alone will not be enough, to bring in talent, the Kings will have to move at least contracts if not actual talent.

 

[The_Jamal]

I'm really curious as to what the FO's thoughts are in terms of long-term player status.
At the moment, the only person I know for certain who is going to be around for the next couple of years is Cousins.

So far I'm really liking what I've seen from Gay as a #2 option and I think that if he continues to play well we can probably lock him up for 'reasonable' (11-14/year) deal.
So if Cousins and Gay are your two primary starting scoring options then in a perfect world you get a starting quality defensive pass-first PG, a starting '3 and D' SG, and a starting quality rim protecting big next to Cousins.
This is the draft to get that starting quality rim protecting big, since they will be available even if we don't win the lottery. So in my head I figure that the defensive big man issue is already solved, which then leaves the issue of a starting quality defensive/pass-first PG and a reliable '3 and D' SG.

I would love to have IT coming off the bench in this scenario, but with how he's been playing, I don't think it's going to happen. So you have to wonder if the FO is going to roll the dice with him as the other major piece, or use him to bring in that PG who can better balance the team.

If you do trade IT, then it actually leaves the door open for Landry as a 6th man, but if you don't trade IT, then I think you have to consider moving Landry (good luck) because I don't know if he'll fit in well with this team due to the limitation in shots.

As for Ben...he is athletic, but he doesn't have good defensive instincts right now. I don't know if he can develop them, but if we get a more pass-first PG then I could see the FO hoping that he'll develop into the '3 and D' SG that would fit the starting unit.

But it all really hinges on who the FO thinks is expendable, and really it starts with IT. Will the FO turn IT's massively good start of the year into a piece that better suits Cousins and Gay or will they roll with this current trio and mold the extra pieces around that.

Pretty much any deal in my mind revolves around that question and at the moment I have no idea as to what their thought process is.

Who's the PG who "balances" the team? I guess that's where I'm confused as to what people expect out of the position. Reality is, PG's don't defend well. Paul, Conley, Westbrook, Lowry, Bledsoe, Holliday, Rondo, Rubio is pretty much the starting caliber list of PG's who play defense. You have specialists like Chalmers, Hill, Douglas, but those guys require a very certain team-makeup to work. It would not be pretty to have to rely on those guys to be a main-ball handler or shot creator for others. And then you have to ask yourself, are any available, and if so, would we have to dump our whole team to get them?

I'll think we'll see their intentions as we get a larger sample of IT-Gay-Cousins. Right now, there isn't a more lethal offensive trio in the league. I don't expect the staggering pace from all 3 to continue, but if any of the production we've seen so far can somewhat hold up, then there's big-time playoff potential with the right supporting cast

 

[Uncia03]

Who's the PG who "balances" the team? I guess that's where I'm confused as to what people expect out of the position. Reality is, PG's don't defend well. Paul, Conley, Westbrook, Lowry, Bledsoe, Holliday, Rondo, Rubio is pretty much the starting caliber list of PG's who play defense. You have specialists like Chalmers, Hill, Douglas, but those guys require a very certain team-makeup to work. It would not be pretty to have to rely on those guys to be a main-ball handler or shot creator for others. And then you have to ask yourself, are any available, and if so, would we have to dump our whole team to get them?

I'll think we'll see their intentions as we get a larger sample of IT-Gay-Cousins. Right now, there isn't a more lethal offensive trio in the league. I don't expect the staggering pace from all 3 to continue, but if any of the production we've seen so far can somewhat hold up, then there's big-time playoff potential with the right supporting cast

It's not really that hard to understand.

A PG who better 'balances' the team is one who does the following:
1.) Is not a weakness on the defensive end. (Most important, because it seems to be completely forgotten that 50% of the game is defense)
2.) Is able to get the ball to Cousins in good spots even against active defenses. (2nd most important)
3.) Is able to get our starting SG good/consistent touches
4.) Allows for more scoring to come off the bench which hopefully means that guys are kept a bit more fresh through-out the game.

When you look at the guys getting minutes (or who will be getting minutes) on the team outside of the the trio you see the following:
JT - Hustle Role player
Acy - Hustle Role Player
Landry - Scorer
Williams - Scorer
Outlaw - Scorer
Ben - Scorer
Thornton - Scorer
Jimmer - Scorer

Basically because you have IT/Gay/Cousins eating up all the shots you render the rest of the roster all but useless.
Ben has no chance of thriving on this roster if he plays the majority of his minutes with IT/Gay/Cousins.
Landry's scoring abilities look like they will be a waste, especially considering what we're paying him, once he get's back into the line-up.
Williams went from looking like a great pick-up to being completely lost in the mix since the trade was made.

To put things in perspective...in the last game against the Spurs our trio took 60 shots plus 18 Fts, which winds up being 69 possessions.
The other 7 guys split the other 32 possessions (31 + 2 FT) amongst them, and that just isn't close to enough shots when you consider how many other 'supposed' scorers we have on our roster.

So you either have to use IT as a trading chip to bring in a PG who can play defense and get other guys involved (and more importantly get the ball to Cousins) or you have to pretty much revamp the entire roster around IT/Gay/Cousins.

As to whom do I realistically expect to get...that's a good question. Right now I'd burn pretty much every asset on the team except Cousins/Gay/1st round pick (Yes, I know we can't trade it right now anyway) to get Rondo. If that fails, I'd consider going heavily after Lowry who is going to be a FA, and would pick up Exum if we actually had the ability to nab him in the draft.

Who knows, maybe the FO expect Ray to be that guy in the future and are just biding their time to see how things play out with IT.

With Cousins and Gay in the starting line-up the best balance you could have would be for your 3rd leading scorer to be a big-time scorer off the bench. (I love IT in that role, but I don't think that is going to be how things play out)
Better defense/distribution is more important for a starting PG when you've got Cousins/Gay/Ben (or any catch-and-shoot SG) in the starting line-up.

 

[The_Jamal]

It's not really that hard to understand.

A PG who better 'balances' the team is one who does the following:
1.) Is not a weakness on the defensive end. (Most important, because it seems to be completely forgotten that 50% of the game is defense)
2.) Is able to get the ball to Cousins in good spots even against active defenses. (2nd most important)
3.) Is able to get our starting SG good/consistent touches
4.) Allows for more scoring to come off the bench which hopefully means that guys are kept a bit more fresh through-out the game.

When you look at the guys getting minutes (or who will be getting minutes) on the team outside of the the trio you see the following:
JT - Hustle Role player
Acy - Hustle Role Player
Landry - Scorer
Williams - Scorer
Outlaw - Scorer
Ben - Scorer
Thornton - Scorer
Jimmer - Scorer

Basically because you have IT/Gay/Cousins eating up all the shots you render the rest of the roster all but useless.
Ben has no chance of thriving on this roster if he plays the majority of his minutes with IT/Gay/Cousins.
Landry's scoring abilities look like they will be a waste, especially considering what we're paying him, once he get's back into the line-up.
Williams went from looking like a great pick-up to being completely lost in the mix since the trade was made.

To put things in perspective...in the last game against the Spurs our trio took 60 shots plus 18 Fts, which winds up being 69 possessions.
The other 7 guys split the other 32 possessions (31 + 2 FT) amongst them, and that just isn't close to enough shots when you consider how many other 'supposed' scorers we have on our roster.

So you either have to use IT as a trading chip to bring in a PG who can play defense and get other guys involved (and more importantly get the ball to Cousins) or you have to pretty much revamp the entire roster around IT/Gay/Cousins.

As to whom do I realistically expect to get...that's a good question. Right now I'd burn pretty much every asset on the team except Cousins/Gay/1st round pick (Yes, I know we can't trade it right now anyway) to get Rondo. If that fails, I'd consider going heavily after Lowry who is going to be a FA, and would pick up Exum if we actually had the ability to nab him in the draft.

Who knows, maybe the FO expect Ray to be that guy in the future and are just biding their time to see how things play out with IT.

With Cousins and Gay in the starting line-up the best balance you could have would be for your 3rd leading scorer to be a big-time scorer off the bench. (I love IT in that role, but I don't think that is going to be how things play out)
Better defense/distribution is more important for a starting PG when you've got Cousins/Gay/Ben (or any catch-and-shoot SG) in the starting line-up.

I know what the "ideal" PG is. My question (and problem) with those expectations is basically there are 4 guys in the NBA who fit that criteria, who don't shoot as much as IT. Rubio, Rondo, Lowry, and Conley. Good luck getting Rubio or Conley. Rondo would take a fortune to pry from Ainge. And Lowry, with how he's playing, is lining himself up for a big FA contract from somebody. Would you rather keep IT for 4/26 or sign Lowry to 4/36?

I just see the defensive big as a MUCH higher priority than replacing IT with what would basically equate to an equal swap with someone like Lowry, after you factor in the offensive drop-off and defensive gain. Cousins has by far had the best month of his career with IT and Gay in the mix. I for one want to see that threesome continue to get minutes together, to see if it's the real deal.

 

[kingnunz]

I don't understand why ALOT of people on here want a pass first defensive point guard? Those point guards arnt around anymore. It's a different game now. Point guards are scorers now

 

[ockingsfan]

Way too early to give up on McClemore. He would just be a Sophomore in college right now (Junior if you count his red-shirt season). If you look at Kobe's rookie season and Harrison Barnes, very similar stat line.

I think that he was rushed into the starting lineup because of MT ineptness at the beginning of the season. It is time for him to take a step back onto the bench and let MT start for now. That way, he can gain his confidence back and play against other bench players and improve out of the spot light.

In a few years, I can see him developing into a solid starter. Somewhere along the lines of a Aaron Affallo or Klay Thompson.

 

[Darren]

Keep starting Ben. The Kings are not making the playoffs anyhow. So you let your 1st round pick play, gain experience and see how he grows.


KB

We're coming for that 8th seed

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't understand why ALOT of people on here want a pass first defensive point guard? Those point guards arnt around anymore. It's a different game now. Point guards are scorers now

And yet interestingly the last 6 NBA titles have all been won by teams with defensive roleplayer type PGs (or just roleplayer PGs): Chalmers, Kidd, Fisher, Rondo.

Now I have poopooed the need for a "pure PG" in the past. I am poopooing the need for a "scoring PG" now. The key connector is this: PGs may not be as relevant as people think they are. If they are passers, they serve the function of setting up their betters. Chalmers, Kidd, Fisher were little more than scrubs by the time they hit the Finals, but being scrubs they spent their time staying out of the way and setting up their HOF teammates. Rondo was better, but really when he won a title was still just a kid, and clearly playing a backseat role to three HOFs himself. Does that mean you CAN'T win with a scoring PG? No, I doubt that. Parker throws a wrench in that theory. But scoring PGs are a problematic creature. And ESPECIALLY scoring PGs who like to selfishly pull up for their shot off the dribble because hey, they did that at the park growing up. Deserves a good hard slap from somebody. The problem with scoring PGs vs. scoring from any other position, is the PGs main job is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense., If he's a selfish turd and looking for his own shot, it freezes the rest of the team out. You can get iso scorers like Melo who freeze up the offense too, but that is actually on the coaches -- if the coach doesn't call plays to throw the ball to the scorer and clear out, there is no freezing. But when your PG is doing the chucking...I have long had a suspicion there may be a high end point total beyond which chucking PG does more damage than helps. They've gotten close though, so I won't say its an absolute. Rose has been to the ECF. Westbrook to the Finals. Might happen one day, but there is an obvious problem there that doesn't kick in for scoring form other positions until around 30ppg or so.

Now, bigger issue is: no, you don't need a "pure PG" as some sort of prerequisite for a winning team. We just had a "pure PG" who lost a ton in New Orleans, then we got him and we could see why. Its no miracle cure for anything. BUT, its about team building and team structure. No, you don't need a pure PG for all teams, but YES, when you have your major star in the frontcourt, your #2 star at SF, THEN you need a pure PG. Or at least not a chucking PG, in order to maximize those guys. Its not about a general rule. Its about us as we're constructed.

 

[beb0p]

He won't be on the floor same time as them (all 3)most of the time and if we move Isaiah to the bench (assuming we get a pass first/defending PG) we start Waiters at SG next season, Waiters becomes what Thomas was this year off the bench.

We wait have all 4 of them on the floor to maybe close out games since Waiters can space the floor and can defend better than any guard we currently got.

I get that Ben is raw and struggling and Waiters is ready and willing, but I won't give up on him just yet. Plus, I'm not feeling Waiters at all. Every time I watch him play he looks like one of our many selfish chuckers from recent years, the kind of player we're trying to get rid of. Plus, I'm not convinced he's a better chucker than MT nor am I convinced that he won't have the same problem of finding rhythm in a structured offense like MT is having right now.

I don't know if McLenmore will ever get it, but at least his style of play - doesn't need the ball, excel at catch and shoot, and athletic; is more conductive to winning than a selfish chucker who pounds the ball and jack up shots.
.

 

[KingMilz]

If not Waiters than imo Sanders could be great regardless of his contract/attitude, the impact a good defensive big can be amazing look at Portland with Lopez who is no where near Sanders in any aspect of defense went from scrubs last season to legit this season.

Sanders makes more sense as well than any of the big C's like Asik because he's got the quickness/explosivness to guard shooting/athletic PF's which Cousins/other big C's can't really do.

Sanders can be to Cousins what
DJ is to Griffin
Lopez is to LMA
Bogut is to Lee

If there is even a hint the Bucks might move him I would give Mclemore to them as well as one of our crappie contracts like Landry or something. Than maybe next season we try sign Thabo or Shumpert as our SG (assuming we don't draft one) so we have a blend of two defensive players in Larry/SG and at least two offensive players in Cousins/Gay and maybe IT.

 

[Hadlowe]

And yet interestingly the last 6 NBA titles have all been won by teams with defensive roleplayer type PGs (or just roleplayer PGs): Chalmers, Kidd, Fisher, Rondo.

Now I have poopooed the need for a "pure PG" in the past. I am poopooing the need for a "scoring PG" now. The key connector is this: PGs may not be as relevant as people think they are. If they are passers, they serve the function of setting up their betters. Chalmers, Kidd, Fisher were little more than scrubs by the time they hit the Finals, but being scrubs they spent their time staying out of the way and setting up their HOF teammates. Rondo was better, but really when he won a title was still just a kid, and clearly playing a backseat role to three HOFs himself. Does that mean you CAN'T win with a scoring PG? No, I doubt that. Parker throws a wrench in that theory. But scoring PGs are a problematic creature. And ESPECIALLY scoring PGs who like to selfishly pull up for their shot off the dribble because hey, they did that at the park growing up. Deserves a good hard slap from somebody. The problem with scoring PGs vs. scoring from any other position, is the PGs main job is to bring the ball up and initiate the offense., If he's a selfish turd and looking for his own shot, it freezes the rest of the team out. You can get iso scorers like Melo who freeze up the offense too, but that is actually on the coaches -- if the coach doesn't call plays to throw the ball to the scorer and clear out, there is no freezing. But when your PG is doing the chucking...I have long had a suspicion there may be a high end point total beyond which chucking PG does more damage than helps. They've gotten close though, so I won't say its an absolute. Rose has been to the ECF. Westbrook to the Finals. Might happen one day, but there is an obvious problem there that doesn't kick in for scoring form other positions until around 30ppg or so.

Now, bigger issue is: no, you don't need a "pure PG" as some sort of prerequisite for a winning team. We just had a "pure PG" who lost a ton in New Orleans, then we got him and we could see why. Its no miracle cure for anything. BUT, its about team building and team structure. No, you don't need a pure PG for all teams, but YES, when you have your major star in the frontcourt, your #2 star at SF, THEN you need a pure PG. Or at least not a chucking PG, in order to maximize those guys. Its not about a general rule. Its about us as we're constructed.

I will also add that point guard is the easiest spot in the league to negate defensively with a long, agile defender. Ask Chris Paul about Tony Allen or Derek Rose about Lebron James or Paul George. If you are counting on clutch baskets from a 6' guy being guarded by a 6'9" defender, you're in for disappointment.

We're also seeing a recurring problem among the hyper-athletic scoring point guards. They are prone to blow-outs. First Rose, now Rondo and Westbrook. It's a problem with putting so much stress and strain on those lower joints.

Parker is, again, the exception that proves the rule. While he is very quick, he stays low to the ground, preferring to score on floaters and layups at angles that avoid the defense instead of going over the top of defenders.

 

[Hadlowe]

We're coming for that 8th seed

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here. I suppose so.

Assuming that every team #7 and lower plays.500 ball from here out, the Kings would have to win 65% of their remaining games in order to secure the #8 spot. Barring a trade for Lebron James, I can't see that happening.

 

[beb0p]

If not Waiters than imo Sanders could be great regardless of his contract/attitude, the impact a good defensive big can be amazing look at Portland with Lopez who is no where near Sanders in any aspect of defense went from scrubs last season to legit this season.

Sanders makes more sense as well than any of the big C's like Asik because he's got the quickness/explosivness to guard shooting/athletic PF's which Cousins/other big C's can't really do.

Sanders can be to Cousins what
DJ is to Griffin
Lopez is to LMA
Bogut is to Lee

If there is even a hint the Bucks might move him I would give Mclemore to them as well as one of our crappie contracts like Landry or something. Than maybe next season we try sign Thabo or Shumpert as our SG (assuming we don't draft one) so we have a blend of two defensive players in Larry/SG and at least two offensive players in Cousins/Gay and maybe IT.

I like Sanders a lot, ever since he blown me away with his play in the summer league in his rookie year; I've been thinking of ways to get him ever since. I am not at all fazed by his contract (very reasonable when you consider what he brings to the table and how few other guys can do what he does) nor his attitude.

Alas, I don't think Sanders is on the trading block. Whoever put that Bucks team together, you can be sure his job is on the line, he needs Sanders to perform to 1) justify his contract and 2) make the team semi-competitive, in order to save his job.

 

[Uncia03]

If not Waiters than imo Sanders could be great regardless of his contract/attitude, the impact a good defensive big can be amazing look at Portland with Lopez who is no where near Sanders in any aspect of defense went from scrubs last season to legit this season.

Sanders makes more sense as well than any of the big C's like Asik because he's got the quickness/explosivness to guard shooting/athletic PF's which Cousins/other big C's can't really do.

Sanders can be to Cousins what
DJ is to Griffin
Lopez is to LMA
Bogut is to Lee

If there is even a hint the Bucks might move him I would give Mclemore to them as well as one of our crappie contracts like Landry or something. Than maybe next season we try sign Thabo or Shumpert as our SG (assuming we don't draft one) so we have a blend of two defensive players in Larry/SG and at least two offensive players in Cousins/Gay and maybe IT.

The reason you don't go after Sanders this year is because of the draft.
There is 1 good-looking PG who will probably go top 5 (Exum) and 3 good looking defensive bigs which will go top 10. (Embiid, Cauley-Stein, Vonleh)
So provided that we maintain our pick there is every reason to believe that we can pick up a good, young, cheap defensive big to put next to Cousins. We will have to have a lot of bad play and a lot of luck in order to get the PG that we need, but virtually no luck in order to get our defensive big.

So since getting a big can be an almost guarantee, you're far better off swinging for the fences to get the PG that you really need. Once you get that PG via trade and draft that big, then you either hope Ben fills his role as a catch-and-shoot defensive SG or you trade an asset to bring in that sort of player....and you now have a balanced talented team that has no excuses not making the play-offs.

 

[Hadlowe]

If not Waiters than imo Sanders could be great regardless of his contract/attitude, the impact a good defensive big can be amazing look at Portland with Lopez who is no where near Sanders in any aspect of defense went from scrubs last season to legit this season.

Sanders makes more sense as well than any of the big C's like Asik because he's got the quickness/explosivness to guard shooting/athletic PF's which Cousins/other big C's can't really do.

Sanders can be to Cousins what
DJ is to Griffin
Lopez is to LMA
Bogut is to Lee

If there is even a hint the Bucks might move him I would give Mclemore to them as well as one of our crappie contracts like Landry or something. Than maybe next season we try sign Thabo or Shumpert as our SG (assuming we don't draft one) so we have a blend of two defensive players in Larry/SG and at least two offensive players in Cousins/Gay and maybe IT.

I have had the Bucks on my radar for trades for a while now. They have been collecting shot-blockers the way we were collecting undersized power forwards. They have holes at three positions with the Greek turning into a maybe good gamble at the three. Meanwhile, O.J. Mayo is failing to live up to his contract, Knight is being outplayed by Nate Wolters, and they have an utter lack of good low-block scoring.

Of the bigs you could get from them, Ilyasova is a maybe and Udoh is likely available for cheap. If Landry's contract were shorter, we could probably coax a rim protector away from them with the promise of some low-post play.

 

[ESP47]

Way too early to give up on McClemore. He would just be a Sophomore in college right now (Junior if you count his red-shirt season). If you look at Kobe's rookie season and Harrison Barnes, very similar stat line.

I think that he was rushed into the starting lineup because of MT ineptness at the beginning of the season. It is time for him to take a step back onto the bench and let MT start for now. That way, he can gain his confidence back and play against other bench players and improve out of the spot light.

In a few years, I can see him developing into a solid starter. Somewhere along the lines of a Aaron Affallo or Klay Thompson.

You have to watch the way Ben plays. Stat lines can only tell you so much. Kobe was 18 and out of high school. You could tell early on that he had some "Jordan" in him and just had to develop it.

I don't know what Ben has. A quick release? He can jump? He actually seems to have good drive and dish playmaking ability but he's hardly able to drive because his handle is so bad. His handle is like high school bad. I don't know if that can be developed at this point. Shooting is something a player can learn but I can't recall players learning how to handle the ball in the NBA. His defense is on par with the worst we've ever seen in a Kings uni and we've seen a lot of bad defense over the years.

I'm not going to say that Ben has no shot at becoming a solid player but I think we're all banking on wishful thinking more so than seeing flashes of what he could become. If we can trade him for a real team need, I would do it at this point. We could come out burned from the deal but the chances of that are probably fairly low at this point.

 

[ESP47]

And yet interestingly the last 6 NBA titles have all been won by teams with defensive roleplayer type PGs (or just roleplayer PGs): Chalmers, Kidd, Fisher, Rondo.

The last 6 NBA titles have all been won by Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Nowitzki, Bryant, Gasol, Pierce, Garnett and Rondo. All of them are Multi-All Star or HOF players. Only one of which is on your list. The rest of those PG's just needed to get out of the way and not screw things up. I don't see how this is relevant unless we somehow land a HOF type player to go next to Cousins.

 

[Glenn]

I don't understand why ALOT of people on here want a pass first defensive point guard? Those point guards arnt around anymore. It's a different game now. Point guards are scorers now

There are two camps about IT and I think their feelings about IT seem to be based on emotion which is then surrounded by stats and logic to support the emotion. Some posters don't post unless the subject is IT. That indicates to me a non-Kings oriented agenda. The Kings needs are being excluded in the discussion of IT. I am done with the argument. The argument is skewed to fit the situation. I think the people you would argue with would be happy with IT coming off the bench. What is wrong with that?

This is a Ben thread. Sorry.

 

[The_Jamal]

The last 6 NBA titles have all been won by Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Nowitzki, Bryant, Gasol, Pierce, Garnett and Rondo. All of them are Multi-All Star or HOF players. Only one of which is on your list. The rest of those PG's just needed to get out of the way and not screw things up. I don't see how this is relevant unless we somehow land a HOF type player to go next to Cousins.

Beat me to it.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

There are two camps about IT and I think their feelings about IT seem to be based on emotion which is then surrounded by stats and logic to support the emotion. Some posters don't post unless the subject is IT. That indicates to me a non-Kings oriented agenda. The Kings needs are being excluded in the discussion of IT. I am done with the argument. The argument is skewed to fit the situation. I think the people you would argue with would be happy with IT coming off the bench. What is wrong with that?

This is a Ben thread. Sorry.

Eh, the discussion is inextricably linked. The philosophy many posters adhere to regarding Ben has a lot to do with their philosophy on IT.

Some posters don't believe that IT belongs in a "big three" yet and want to keep Ben to see if he can develop into that third weapon. Other posters think we have our three main weapons, and want to trade McLemore while his value is high to get a piece thats more ready to win now. And even that camp is further divided into posters who think IT should start and posters who think IT should come off the bench.

Its like starting a thread on the future of JT and expecting Cousins' name not to pop up in the discussion. Inextricably linked.